IBRAHIM -v- HERRING [No 2] [2011] WASCA 236

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 236
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	26/10/2011
Case No:	CACR:133/2010	Heard:	21 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:	NEWNES JA	Delivered:	21/10/11
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for review dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MOHAMED TAREK IBRAHIM RAL STEPHEN HERRING
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Registrar refused to accept for filing appellant's application for review of decision of single judge Application included matters that were not decision of single judge Appellant sought review of registrar's decision Application for review of registrar's decision dismissed Appellant's application for review of decision of single judge did not comply with rules Limited nature of allowances that can be made for litigant in person
Legislation:	Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 8, r 10(1), r 15, r 16, r 43 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61(1), s 61(3)
Case References:	Ibrahim v Herring [2011] WASC 190

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : IBRAHIM -v- HERRING [No 2] [2011] WASCA 236 CORAM : NEWNES JA HEARD : 21 OCTOBER 2011 DELIVERED : 21 OCTOBER 2011 PUBLISHED : 26 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CACR 133 of 2010 BETWEEN : MOHAMED TAREK IBRAHIM

Appellant

AND

RAL STEPHEN HERRING

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HALL J

Citation : IBRAHIM -v- HERRING [2010] WASC 190

File No : SJA 1091 of 2009

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Registrar refused to accept for filing appellant's application for review of decision of single judge - Application included matters that were not decision of single judge - Appellant sought review of registrar's decision - Application for review of registrar's decision dismissed - Appellant's application for review of decision of single judge did not comply with rules - Limited nature of allowances that can be made for litigant in person

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 8, r 10(1), r 15, r 16, r 43

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61(1), s 61(3)

Result:

Application for review dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ibrahim v Herring [2011] WASC 190

(Page 3)

1 NEWNES JA: The appellant has applied for the review of the decision of a registrar of this court who refused to accept for filing the appellant's application for review of the decision of a single judge. The appellant appeared in person on this application, as he has throughout the antecedent proceedings.

2 On 21 October 2011, I dismissed the application for review of the registrar's decision. I said I would publish reasons for my decision. These are the reasons.

Background

3 On 6 August 2009 the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ibrahim v Herring [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Ibrahim v Herring [No 2] [2011] WASCA 236
Case: [2011] WASCA 236
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Ibrahim v Herring [No 2] involved a dispute regarding the appellant's application for review of a decision made by a single judge. The registrar had refused to accept the application for filing, finding that it included matters that were not within the scope of the single judge's decision. The appellant subsequently sought a review of the registrar's decision, arguing that it should be allowed despite its non-compliance with the rules. The central issue was whether the application for review of the registrar's decision could proceed, given the appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements.

The court examined the strict procedural rules governing applications for review and noted the limited allowances that could be made for litigants representing themselves. It was determined that the application for review of the registrar's decision did not comply with the necessary rules, which were designed to ensure that such applications are focused and relevant to the original decision. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the application for review of the registrar's decision was dismissed, reinforcing the necessity for strict compliance with procedural rules.

Given the dismissal of the application for review, the court concluded that the appellant's application for review of the decision of the single judge also did not comply with the relevant rules. This decision underscored the court's commitment to procedural fairness and the importance of following established rules. The court's reasoning highlighted the stringent nature of the requirements for litigants in person, ensuring that the judicial process is conducted efficiently and effectively. The final order was that the application for review was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.